(The article referred to above entitled "Narcotic Drug Addiction and Rational Administration," by Charles E. Terry, M. D., may be found in the appendix at p. 1722.)

Dr. Howe. Now, a few minutes more. With respect to the Los Angeles clinic, here is a brief of the article by E. H. Williams, "Some Observations on the Narcotic Situation." This is as follows:

The important thing about the existing narcotic laws, however, regardless of inconsistencies, is the fact that they do not appear to be getting adequate results ***. The narcotic clinics conducted in the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego for a brief period in 1920, produced results that were encouraging,

to say the least.

The Los Angeles clinic was started as a department of the board of health, with the approval and assistance of the municipal authorities, for the purpose of giving preliminary medical treatment to narcotic addicts. The clinic endeavored to supply persons who required the constant use of an opiate with the necessary amount of their narcotic in gradually decreasing doses at a nominal price. It was conducted by physicians detailed by the health commissioner, and under the immediate direction of the narcotic board composed of prominent physicians, public-spirited citizens, and Federal, State, and municipal officers who volunteered their time and services.

Summarizing the important accomplishments of the clinic he con

tinues:

For one thing illicit peddling was reduced to a minimum. When the patient could get morphine honestly for 10 cents a grain, why be dishonest at 10 times the price with a good chance of landing in jail into the bargain? The peddlers complained, almost openly, that they were being ruined by the clinic.

The clinic made it possible for several individuals to engage in honest occupations for the first time in many months. Heretofore, the uncertainty of the source of supply, and the ruinous prices demanded by the peddler had kept these patients in a state of physical dilapidation that they were unable to work. This clinic enabled many of these victims to again become honest breadwinners. Several of them were now able to provide for their families and again live in a respectable and self-respecting manner. And meanwhile their general health was improved by the gradually reduced doses dispensed at the clinic, and release from the harassing anxiety about obtaining their drug.

The Los Angeles Clinic was opened March 8, 1920, and closed August 17 of the same year-5 months-by order of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

After the close of the Los Angeles Clinic, Dr. Buchler (The Opium Problem, Terry and Pellens, p. 875) states:

From the many letters received at the time of the clinics last days we glean one salient fact, that with the clinic operating, these unfortunates were able to work, and have the ideal of normal men to look up to. Some who came to the clinic ragged and filthy left it with decent clothes, a bank account, and a sense of having been a part of the machinery of production. Just what will become of those who prospered with the clinic, is open to rather dismal conjecture ***. Every day since the clinic has closed there have been patients, their relatives and friends, come to tell us of the tragedies that followed in the wakes of these addicts' failure to get their morphia. Families have been broken up, men and women have lost their jobs, others have gone where the drug is accessible all of this cemented together with suffering that takes courage to see. On April 18, 1921, Dr. L. M. Powers, health commissioner of Los Angeles stated, in part:

We regret very much that we were unable to carry to a successful issue our clinics and final treatment of addicts in Los Angeles. We saw ahead of us great results, much greater than we had anticipated when we first commenced work, but you know all of our health work depends upon somebody else's direction and financing; in this matter as in others, we have had to bide the time when people could be better educated. I have not been able to realize the actual purpose of closing our clinic, for there has been some unseen motive prompting much opposition to the clinics which I have not been able to comprehend.

71515-56-pt. 54

Senator DANIEL. Doctor, as a matter of fact, didn't the American Medical Association itself take a hand in bringing about the closing of the clinic?

Dr. Howe. Well, so much-yes. I think, as a matter of fact, the resolution of the American Medical Association was drafted by the same Public Health Relations Committee that-at least, they endorsed it. I think they authorized it. Of course, the condition then was that everybody hoped this was going to cure addicts.

Well, you are not going to cure addicts by that method or any other to any large extent; and so I am in no way recommending a return to the clinics as they were.

The only reason that I read you these things is to show you that they were not complete flops as far as anything except-I mean that they could work except curing them. They did not cure anybody. That is the only reason that I would like to give Dr. Williams' whole article which I quoted from.

Senator DANIEL. That will be received and be made a part of the appendix.

The article referred to above entitled "Some Observations on the Narcotic Situation," by Edward Huntington Williams, M. D., may be found in the appendix at p. 1726.)

Senator DANIEL. Doctor, do you suppose you will be prepared to put those in when we resume after lunch?

Dr. Howe. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. Judge, will you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give to this subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Judge GOLDSTEIN. I do.

TESTIMONY OF HON. JONAH J. GOLDSTEIN, JUDGE, COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, NEW YORK

Senator DANIEL. Judge, we welcome you and thank you for appearing before us.

Judge GOLDSTEIN. I have a prepared statement.

Senator DANIEL. You may proceed.

Judge GOLDSTEIN. May I make this preliminary statement? The subject matter has been of great concern to me over the years, but I am dealing with the law end. I am not a doctor; I am a patient. I pay doctors to try to keep me well.

I kept crowding the medical profession: Is there or is there not a cure? If there was a cure, I am for curing.

And not until the Academy of Medicine and other medical authorities came to the conclusion that all of this talk about cure was the bunk, am I prepared to make this statement and take a forthright position on the subject of narcotics as follows:

Stop the illicit drug traffic by taking the profit out of it and, at the same time, reduce crimes committed to get money to buy drugs at exorbitant prices.

Senator DANIEL. Judge, identify yourself fully so that we will have it in the record. These New York people know you and we know you, but for the record, please identify yourself.

Judge GOLDSTEIN. I am Jonah J. Goldstein, judge of the court of general sessions, New York County, residing at 101 West 55th Street, zone 19.

Commonsense and experience dictate that habits cannot be controlled or cured by the criminal law. As Mr. Bumble in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist said, "If the law suppose that, the law is a ass." The use of tobacco, in any form, is not a healthy habit, any more than overeating or overindulgence in liquor, however, these problems are dealt with through education and medical science, and not via the criminal law. Of course, there is no comparison between the craving for narcotics and the craving for food or liquor, because the craving of the addict for narcotics is well nigh irresistible.

It is a matter of common knowledge what we went through during the prohibition era. Many who never touched a drop of liquor before prohibition, resentful of the prohibition law, started to drink and teen-agers thought it smart to carry hip flasks. After the repeal of prohibition and the substitution of regulation for prohibition, many of the abuses which flourished under prohibition were eliminated. With the repeal of prohibition many bootleggers turned to the profitable field of narcotics. There is still a vociferous minority who assert that prohibition failed because of the lack of enforcement; that if we had more jails, more law-enforcement officers and severer jail sentences, prohibition would have succeeded. Our citizens by and large, came to the conclusion that as a choice between prohibition and regulation, commonsense dictated the choice of regulation-the choice of evils, if you will.

In like fashion as to the use of narcotics, we must make the choice between its prohibition and regulation.

Weaning an addict away from the narcotic habit is clearly a medical problem and not one for the law.

In the 24 years of my judicial service, I have never had a rich narcotic user brought before me, nor have I heard of a rich narcotic user being brought into the criminal court before any other judge—yet, there is no doubt in my mind that there are rich users.

Experience has repeatedly shown that every low income narcotic user is a pusher, a seller, and a potential recruiter of new addicts. If the user can sell part of his illegal narcotics, his drugs will cost him less. If the user can satisfy his habit lawfully, the illegal sellers will have to go out of business. There can be sellers only where there are buyers-no buyers-no sellers.

The bootlegger rode high, wide, and handsome because of the profit motive; likewise, the professional drug seller is engaged in that nefarious business only because of its huge profit.

And so, I urge the turning over of the narcotic problem to the medical profession where it belongs. The user who can afford to pay for the drugs he needs should go to his private physician; the poor addict should go to the clinic as do the sick poor of today for treatment. I am informed that it now takes $20 and more a day, to keep a narcotic user supplied with drugs. The average addict cannot get that much money lawfully.

Prior to the enactment of the Harrison Act, there were clinics at which the poor addict could get narcotics at the nominal cost he could afford, but the mistake those clinics made, which should not be re

peated if they are restablished, was to give the addict the narcotics to take out. This enabled the addict to sell or pass on the drug to others. The addict, when going to his private physician, or to the clinic, should get his doses by injection. He cannot sell it after it has been injected in to him.

Under no circumstances should the addict be permitted to take the narcotic off the premises. Surely, the medical prefession is best qualified to devise ways and means to furnish the user the narcotics he needs.

The vast sums of money now being spent on attempted narcotic law enforcement could better be used to educate the public, and particularly our youths, as to the evils of the narcotic habit. The moneys now spent and the manpower used by enforcement agencies on attempted narcotic control could better be used to track down antisocial crimes and criminals.

Many people think that addicts commit crimes while they are under the influence of drugs. This is not true. The reverse is the case. Addicts, spurred on by intense craving for the drug, commit crimes to obtain funds to buy the drugs they need. Federal officials charged with the enforcement of narcotic laws have repeatedly made public statements that the number of narcotic addicts has steadily decreased. The records in the court of general sessions show the contrary.

I cannot speak for any other court records other than right here in New York County.

The probation department of the court of general sessions tabulated the figures for the last 5 years of persons charged with illegal possession and sale of narcotics, 99 percent of whom were drug users. Now, I do not think that people in Brooklyn or in Queens are different than they are in Manhattan.

Even more significant, and proving my point that addicts resort to crime to get money to buy their drugs, are the statistics of the probation department showing that 30 percent of the prisoners investigated were dope addicts, of all the crimes committed, and to back up that

statement

Senator DANIEL. Over what period?

Judge GOLDSTEIN. Five years.

Attorney General Javits makes that statement in his report on narcotic addiction in New York, dated September 1, 1955, after making a thorough study. I am quoting from his most recent report of September 1 of this month.

These figures do not include acquittals or dismissals for insufficient evidence and, of course, do not include vast numbers of users who commit crimes to obtain money, but who are not apprehended. This 30 percent is of those apprehended.

Every defendant in the court of general sessions is given a thorough physical and psychiatric examination before sentence, and these statistics are based upon the findings of the physicians who made such examination.

Every bootlegger was opposed to the repeal of prohibition; likewise, the narcotic seller is opposed to the change suggested, which would put him out of business.

It is high time that we stop the revolving door method of handling narcotic addicts-turning them into a prison to be turned out, to be

turned in again, this process ending only with death. The only way to stop the present revolving door system is to place control of the use of narcotics where it logically belongs-with the medical profession and hospitals-and take it out of the criminal law where it never should have been and where it has no place.

Now, that is my statement after experience as a lawyer since 1907 and as a judge since 1931.

Senator DANIEL. Is it your opinion, Judge, that you would have to change the laws of New York in order to make this system legal? Judge GOLDSTEIN. You would have to have it national, because if we changed New York, we would have all the addicts from the rest of the States coming into New York. Why should we treat them?

Senator DANIEL. You recognize, then, that your New York law today would not permit this system of treatment.

Judge GOLDSTEIN. It would not because of the Federal situation. Senator DANIEL. And the national laws would not permit this. Judge GOLDSTEIN. Would not, no.

Senator DANIEL. Do you think, Judge, we could constitutionally have a Federal law which would cover this whole field of narcotics? Judge GOLDSTEIN. In each State. If you took away the Federal Harrison Act provision, then each State could do its own regulation. There are lots of crimes in one State that are not crimes in another. Senator DANIEL. What causes you to believe that by giving 30 percent of all the criminals over 5 years free or low-cost drugs they would quit their crime?

Judge GOLDSTEIN. They commit crimes to get money to pay for narcotics, to buy narcotics. Because they cannot get honest employment that will give them over $20 a day as a user, they mug, they rob, they burglarize; every conceivable crime is committed in order to get the money to buy the narcotics.

Punishment is no deterrent for crime. There is no worse punishment than electrocution. Has it decreased the number of murders?

Senator DANIEL. Do you think these addicts who have criminal records will now, even though they might have been caused to get the drug, be able to secure employment?

Judge GOLDSTEIN. Depending on the individuals. I know people that will not give employment to those with a record; I know people that cooperate with the American Prison Association, that employ people with criminal records.

Senator DANIEL. Only one other question.

Judge GOLDSTEIN. I have no general panacea for all.

One thing I believe is that the medical profession is ahead of the law. They proceed on the basis of individual diagnosis and treatment and not mass prescription.

Senator DANIEL. Only one other question: Have you every known any addicts who were criminals first or associated with criminals before becoming addicts?

Judge GOLDSTEIN. That would not prove anything even if I did know. They did hang out with disreputable people and they get into the gang and they do take the narcotics-but if you go all out and advocate gas chambers for the incurable addict, I will go along with you, and we will meet them in the next incarnation and say to them, "You are a nuisance; we have got more important things to do in the community."